Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 16, 2014, 8:40 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All right you silly fukers. Are you ready? I know many of you do not like me, and that is fine. I am content with that. It's alright. At least by now you should be well aware that I am not going to sit here and lie to you. I will simply tell it as it appears to be - or not - and explain why this is so. That - along with cheering the movement - is all I have ever done.

I have come to a clear understanding that much, though not entirely all, of philosophy is and has become an utterly useless endeavor. This is because it comes to us from the Academy, or more properly, from Academia. It draws the best and the brightest of intellects given to rumination over the most problematic aspects of human behavior, society, and culture - and yet as it does so it cannot entirely divorce itself from the power structure of the society within which it resides.

This has been true as far back as Socrates, and his tea.

The temptation to tell truth to power by anyone of average intelligence and a civic inclination can be overwhelming when one spots grotesque inefficiency and a senseless squandering of resources. Yet to do so does encompass certain risks. History is clear about this.

To address this simple and inescapable fact, those who teach philosophy must, over time, have come to a simple solution if they are to ensure the survival of themselves and their most gifted students. Such solutions can be nothing short of curbs to the genius of youth, such curbs presenting a clear conflict with existential belief in an era of social corruption and moral decay and must produce a high degree of cynicism and disdain. This can be the only explanation for the rise of nihilism early in the 19th century.

What we see in Libertarian Communism, whose aim is to produce a society where everyone represents their own interests, is a form of nihilism applied to social organization. This is itself entirely contradictory - for if nihilism posits that nothing has value then any form of social organization is simply ridiculus and a complete waste of time. And so the question does arise - Why? Why organize anything at all?

The answer is quite simple, it is because we must. To do nothing is not an option. We simply must do something. And so those within academia have settled on a solution that does blunt the threat a mass of organized discontent must produce. The discontented masses present little threat so long as each individual represents themselves and no one else. But once one of them arises to organize and to lead . . . we have seen what happens.

By why is it not possible to organize a society around principles of Libertarian Communism? And why must this simple reality be readily apparent to the brightest of scholars among us and throughout history?

It is not possible to use Libertarian Communism as a governing philosophy simply because throughout seven thousand years of planting seeds, much of humanity has not been able to love thy neighbor. The Christian tradition tells us that the rise of the law was because of that express inability. The Greek and Latin tradition demonstrates where the absence of law must lead. These two traditions make a similar pronouncement, and all of human history both before and since does seem to confirm it. It is simply not possible to organize large communities around principles of lawlessness.

If we are honest with ourselves, then we must admit, our own experience with the General Assembly process as applied during the Occupation of Wall Street does confirm the impossibility of Libertarian Communism.

.

As to why individuals such as Chomsky would hold forth such fallacy before the public as virtue to be desired above all else, one is left to speculate. Idealism, perhaps; or a thin cloak given to power itself as the leadership of dissent is neutered. What is clear is that in his discussions of the day, Chomsky is not speaking to us. He is speaking to power. He is speaking in symbols.

I see you think GAs were a waste of time, and whatnot, and stated we must do something quite a few times...

Just wondering what it is. Whats the plan? Keep things as they are and run candidates? Keep things as they are and create new parties? Create a new system and try out in small places? Educate the masses and hope they come up with it?

I mean, everyone knows how frustrating GAs are. Nothing like debating whether general stack serves a purpose or not, or my favorite- debating if debate should be part of the GA- but whats the end game?

I see a lot of what won't work, with little in the scope what will in any level of detail provided for what wont

Yes, I saw that. I'm just not sure what kind of message that is if you stand in front of occupy and declare that your plan for action is to simply tell the truth.

I like the simplicity of it, and its certainly important, just not sure what to do with it afterwards. So you get everyone to agree to start telling the truth.... Then what? Is this going on the assumption that if that happens, everything else will take care of itself?

Oh I can imagine it very well, and I think it would be a good rallying call, just curious as to what the political alternative you are envisioning looks like, because the topic will eventually come up.

And it must be easily understood and quickly embraced by the vast proportion of citizens of the nation, and so quickly implemented by the people.

Quite - no legalese mumbo-jumbo billion and a half multi-verbose words - to express a single thought that can be fully represented in full meaning by a single sentence with fewer than three compound words.

Nobody hates you, we just find you boring beyond belief. You're at the wrong place. Like a rabbi preaching his religion in a church, or a hockey player on a football field. You post against anarcho-syndicalism which is the core foundation of Occupy, an anarchy-communist movement. It makes no sense. What do you expect? That Occupy becomes just like your Democrats? What would be the point of changing Occupy to something else? We already have groups and movements for what you believe in, why not leave us with what we believe in?

What we see in Libertarian Communism, whose aim is to produce a society where everyone represents their own interests

This shows you don't understand Libertarian Communism. It's not about the personal interests of individuals. That's capitalism. Libertarian Communism is about the interests of the population as a whole.

People/Nation will determine how they will act on their own and are only obligated to considered TTP if they choose to acknowledge that group has legitimate standing. Complaining about rules set forth by a illegitimate group (TTP) means that we take this group as an authority.

I suggest you read a book on anarcho-communism, or talk to OWS founders and intellectuals on the topic. You confuse it with anarcho-individualism. It makes me sad when people spread false information about anarcho-communism, especially when it's from basic ignorance. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves before tackling complicated subjects in public discourse.

It's a good start, but reading and understanding are two different things. You contradict this text in your OP on several occasions. You should really read a whole book on the subject if you wish to be able to fluidly discuss it in a manner that makes sense and is in tune with what anarcho-communism is and isn't.